I do not wish to pour gasoline on the situation but I do agree that more power does have its place with people who live in areas like Denver at 5000 feet field elevation. They do not get the 120 horses at that elevation they would only get about 96 horse power from the engine due to the limited manifold pressure available at that altitude. As they climb higher to fly at 3-4000 feet above ground level they end up just like a 85 horse aircraft that departed from sea level and climbed to 4000 feet above sea level. I think that is why we regularly see the 100 hp Cont. engines advertised for sale in the higher elevation states. If this were my problem to solve (which it is not as I live in Oregon when I am in the USA) I would use the Cont. 0-240 that is being used on the high powered Katana. It is the same basic size as the 0-200 and it produces 125 hp. It is in current production and should fit the same engine mount as the 0-200. If I had the time and interest (because I lived at a high altitude field) this is the route that I would explore. In larger aircraft, like Bonanzas) we see the problem solved with turbo normalising (this is where a turbocharger is used to maintain full sea level manifold pressure and consequently sea level rated power up to about 15,000 feet) it would be very costly but it would be a very interesting approach to the 0-200 Cont. I do not think most of us flying an Ercoupe would spend the money required to add this feature (over $ 20,000). I do agree that with limited ruder authority adding to much power at or near sea level to a Ercoupe could cause real handling problems due to the added torque and P factor. I would think that a considerable amount of engineering would be needed to work out the added forces and determine the correct left and down offsets for the new high powered engine installation The reserve power would be nice but the added weight in what is already a payload challenged aircraft may not be a good idea. Best regards, Vern Hendershott
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
